Ancient History and Modern Cinema

[caldrail]

I thought not. The trouble with prime-time re-enactments of the romans on tv or the big-screen is that it suffers from a modern perspective. Have you noticed that in modern 'period' films the actors behaviour is almost invariably modern californian? The old attitudes, mindset, and accepted behaviour have gone. We sometimes find B&W war movies a bit stilted don't we? Yet many of those actors were in fact war veterans themselves, and in one or two cases, were actually re-living their past. There are exceptions - 'A Bridge Too Far' for instance, which does a very good job of being consistent with that period.

 

This of course spills over in roman period films where the director or producer wants something visual that shows a certain 'alienness' in roman culture in order to give to appearance of depicting an ancient culture. So we see a clip where a wet nurse deposits her milk in a corpses mouth as previously mentioned. In order to depict romans with any accuracy (and we can't be exact - there's no living witnesses after all) a great deal of research is required and some effort by the actors to learn those mannerisms expected of roman citizens. That would add up to a verrrry expensive production, so instead we get these odd scenes or the unhistorical mix of gladiatorial equipment in Gladiator, or the easy-going brashness of modern interaction in Rome.

 

Could they do better? Oh yes. Wiould they do better? Too expensive, and in any case the whole point is to entertain, not educate.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

I thought not. The trouble with prime-time re-enactments of the romans on tv or the big-screen is that it suffers from a modern perspective. Have you noticed that in modern 'period' films the actors behaviour is almost invariably modern californian? The old attitudes, mindset, and accepted behaviour have gone. We sometimes find B&W war movies a bit stilted don't we? Yet many of those actors were in fact war veterans themselves, and in one or two cases, were actually re-living their past. There are exceptions - 'A Bridge Too Far' for instance, which does a very good job of being consistent with that period.

 

This of course spills over in roman period films where the director or producer wants something visual that shows a certain 'alienness' in roman culture in order to give to appearance of depicting an ancient culture. So we see a clip where a wet nurse deposits her milk in a corpses mouth as previously mentioned. In order to depict romans with any accuracy (and we can't be exact - there's no living witnesses after all) a great deal of research is required and some effort by the actors to learn those mannerisms expected of roman citizens. That would add up to a verrrry expensive production, so instead we get these odd scenes or the unhistorical mix of gladiatorial equipment in Gladiator, or the easy-going brashness of modern interaction in Rome.

 

Could they do better? Oh yes. Wiould they do better? Too expensive, and in any case the whole point is to entertain, not educate.

 

Furthermore, to much realism will ruin some pure exhillarating action in Gladiator and spoil the quaity of a vast majority of the acting in Rome. I find a lot of films in history are to much like modern actors, emotions and culture masquerading in tunics and Roman soldiers uniform.

 

A visual delicacy is what film is all about and the use of 'lies' such as the milk provide a way of viewing the Romans as a generation that has come to pass, rather than a historical referencing documentary.

 

I love your summarisatiion of if they could do better (I think it isn't as expensive, if a film director or author really wants to have accuracy they've gota lot of resources, including here: A huge amount of data is collected and piled up here. Is it not?

 

vtc

[caldrail]

Not necessarily. They're not going to keep hundreds of items for a single movie. Most large screen epics require costumes to be made for it (equipment too) and if they can source stuff already xisting, they will use it. If that means they cut a corner or two, then so be it. Large budget productions don't have bottomless pockets - a major film can easily run over budget if tight control is not kept.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

Not necessarily. They're not going to keep hundreds of items for a single movie. Most large screen epics require costumes to be made for it (equipment too) and if they can source stuff already xisting, they will use it. If that means they cut a corner or two, then so be it. Large budget productions don't have bottomless pockets - a major film can easily run over budget if tight control is not kept.

 

Indeed, Ridley scott mentions in Kingdom of Heaven he usually likes to use pre-existing arrangements and that he was devastated when he couldn't use some of the breatplates from gladiator

 

vtc

[CiceroD]

Have you noticed that in modern 'period' films the actors behaviour is almost invariably modern californian? The old attitudes, mindset, and accepted behaviour have gone.

 

Could they do better? Oh yes. Wiould they do better? Too expensive, and in any case the whole point is to entertain, not educate.

 

I agree with you totally Caldrail that historical movies leave a lot to be desired for. Especially the caliber of hollywood acting.

 

But may I make an observation about what ive bolded (and I'm not trying to be annoying).

 

All movies about the classical peoriod are produced in a British Accent. The only exception ive ever seen to this rule was the Clive Owen King Arthur movie. There the Romans finally sound Italian.

This is a point Ive made before. Also note that I'm not really complaining after all sticking an American sounding character in Ancient Rome would be ... a glaring inconsistancy.

[The Augusta]

Have you noticed that in modern 'period' films the actors behaviour is almost invariably modern californian? The old attitudes, mindset, and accepted behaviour have gone.

 

Could they do better? Oh yes. Wiould they do better? Too expensive, and in any case the whole point is to entertain, not educate.

 

I agree with you totally Caldrail that historical movies leave a lot to be desired for. Especially the caliber of hollywood acting.

 

But may I make an observation about what ive bolded (and I'm not trying to be annoying).

 

All movies about the classical peoriod are produced in a British Accent. The only exception ive ever seen to this rule was the Clive Owen King Arthur movie. There the Romans finally sound Italian.

This is a point Ive made before. Also note that I'm not really complaining after all sticking an American sounding character in Ancient Rome would be ... a glaring inconsistancy.

 

You make a valid point here, CiceroD. Of course Romans didn't speak with cut-glass Noel Coward accents - but I think the tradition of Brits playing Romans stems from the age-old bias (of which our US cousins have been just as guilty in the past) of 'classical roles requiring classical actors'. Now, this no longer applies, as our latest swords and sandals epics are not written to echo Shakespeare and the like, but I honestly do believe that this is where all this started. Julius Caesar, Cicero, Crassus, Mark Antony, Henry VIII, Queen Victoria - any character from the mists of history was 'elevated' into classical status - regardless of the actual historical period. History was 'a serious business' and required all the stage-trained thesps to turn out in front of the cameras to lend it gravitas. It's all totally bogus, of course, but I am sure this belief has led to the constant use of Brits for 'classical' roles.

 

However, not all movies about the classical world have used Brits! Spartacus? Ben Hur? The Robe? Demetrius and the Gladiators? Jason and the Argonauts? And let us not forget Troy and Alexander of recent and bitter memory!

 

I suppose we have to find a happy medium, however. Gods forbid that we should have our Romans speaking fluent Latin to aid authenticity and have another 'Passion of the Christ' on our hands!

 

Erm...I think we've drifted off topic..... back to blood-letting.